Re: OT Gas Prices and the Blame Game

On May 21, 3:58 pm, bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 21 mei, 18:18, John Larkin wrote:

This isn't rocket science. This isn't science at all.

What you've posted isn't science, just one more daft conspiracy
theory.

One good way to improve your models' performance is to change the data
to better support your conclusion:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
"A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has
reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the
earth won't be getting any warmer until 2015. Researchers at the
Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic
into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the
"consensus" models which don't."

[...]

"How can scientists who report measurements of the earth's temperature
within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the
temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something
appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data - but what is it?"

[...]

"NASA staff have done some recent bookkeeping and refined the data
from 1930-1999. [...] Particularly troubling are the years from
1986-1998. In the 2007 version of the graph, the 1986 data was
adjusted upwards by 0.4 degrees relative to the 1999 graph. In fact,
every year except one from 1986-1998 was adjusted upwards, by an
average of 0.2 degrees. If someone wanted to present a case for a lot
of recent warming, adjusting data upwards would be an excellent way to
do it.

Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of
the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's
science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global
warming."


Details of NASA's data edits and how they were discovered are here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

Cheers,
James Arthur
.

Relevant Pages
Loading